Some thoughts about the Process

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:16 am


Bardh said:
Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Roger Holmes, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart . edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 08:58 AM



Whoops!
I left out Roger Holmes - my apologies!

CJenkin
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:01 pm

Post by CJenkin » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:26 am


In any case I do not believe that this thesis vindicates the choices George made in devising his orthography. And, as I said, whatever the date of the Prosodic Shift it was certainly complete by the time of Jordan -- even George agrees on this. And since the SWF must encompass both dialects of Revived Cornish (or it cannot succeed) it is still my view that KS or a reconciliation of KS and KD is the way forward.



This paragraph suggests that Michael hasn't actually read the thesis. I suggest people sit down and take the time to read it carefully and thoroughly.

One of the things that Chaudri points out is that neither Williams or George are correct about the prosodic shift and that it has nothing to do with pre-occlusion. He also demonstrates that William's theory is completely regarding the prosodic shift is completely untenable based on the linguistic evidence.

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:34 am

The first point to strike anybody is that about two third of the people listed are not Cornish-speakers. On the one hand, this is abound to leave any reasonable person at least apprehensive. The fate of the language, as far as the Partnership is concerned, is not in the hands of those who use it. That is, potentially at least, worrying.

On the other, given the current demographics of Cornish, having one third Cornish-speakers on such a body is quite an achievement, and testifies to a certain element of good will. We must surely welcome this, and congratulate those involved.


Bardh said:
[quote=Bardh]Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Roger Holmes, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart .



Whoops!
I left out Roger Holmes - my apologies![/quote]





edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 11:52 AM

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:42 am


Palores said:

Keith is simply wrong in his assertion that pre-occlusion can be predicted. It cannot.


Chaudhri disagrees; he says "pre-occlusion is an entirely predictable sound-change".

We have given him examples before, and he has ignored them.


I have not seen these examples. Please give them again, and explain in what way they support your assertion of unpredictability.


I can help here! Apparently 'gon' (my a woer) is a very good example. Given that a pre-occluded form was never recorded, by scribes whose spelling was somewhat hwymm-hwamm anyway, pre-occlusion cannot be predicted. Personally, in terms of 'prediction' I find that a ridiculous argument. It's a bit like saying that despite big black thunderclouds overhead, rain can't be predicted because there is no evidence of water falling from the sky.
But for a trained linguist, which so many of us are not (soweth!) it's a very good example of the principle of unpredictability, and you'll find more examples in the texts.


pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:49 am


CJenkin said:
This paragraph suggests that Michael hasn't actually read the thesis. I suggest people sit down and take the time to read it carefully and thoroughly.



I agree. Give it a go, everybody.

It's a bit of a struggle, for mere mortals, but to give an idea of what you're faced with, on the whole I've found it much easier to read than Cornish Today, and not as easy as Cornish for the 21st Century.

If I can get through it, anybody can!

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:50 am

About a third of the list are elected public representatives of one sort or another. It's particularly gratifying to see that someone at Councillor Brooke's level is involved.


Bardh said:
The first point to strike anybody is that about two third of the people listed are not Cornish-speakers. On the one hand, this is abound to leave any reasonable person at least apprehensive. The fate of the language, as far as the Partnership is concerned, is not in the hands of those who use it. That is, potentially at least, worrying.

On the other, given the current demographics of Cornish, having one third Cornish-speakers on such a body is quite an achievement, and testifies to a certain element of good will. We must surely welcome this, and congratulate those involved.




Bardh said:
[quote=Bardh]Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Roger Holmes, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart .



Whoops!
I left out Roger Holmes - my apologies! [/quote]

P.S. It was intriguing, to say the least, to read that Councillor Ansari hosted the reception for the Commission. May we take it that she no longer considers manifestations of Cornish identity to be dangerous?







edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 11:53 AM

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:41 pm

As for employees and/or representatives of various quangos and other public bodies, again, the proportion was roughly one third.

(By the way, it should go without saying that several of the people on the list fall into more than one category.)


Bardh said:
About a third of the list are elected public representatives of one sort or another. It's particularly gratifying to see that someone at Councillor Brooke's level is involved.

[quote=Bardh]The first point to strike anybody is that about two third of the people listed are not Cornish-speakers. On the one hand, this is abound to leave any reasonable person at least apprehensive. The fate of the language, as far as the Partnership is concerned, is not in the hands of those who use it. That is, potentially at least, worrying.

On the other, given the current demographics of Cornish, having one third Cornish-speakers on such a body is quite an achievement, and testifies to a certain element of good will. We must surely welcome this, and congratulate those involved.




Bardh said:
[quote=Bardh]Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Roger Holmes, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart .



Whoops!
I left out Roger Holmes - my apologies! [/quote]

P.S. It was intriguing, to say the least, to read that Councillor Ansari hosted the reception for the Commission. May we take it that she no longer considers manifestations of Cornish identity to be dangerous?



[/quote]

As they teach you in Noddy's First Steps in Journalism, when you see a monkey you should always look for the organ-grinder. In respect of anybody on the list at the instance of some hierarchical organization, we need to know who their line manager is.



edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 01:03 PM

FlammNew
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:29 pm

Post by FlammNew » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:57 pm


Bardh said:

[quote=Bardh]
[quote=Bardh]




Bardh said:

[quote=Bardh]



[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

It's the first sign, you know...

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:08 pm

Amongst the Cornish-speakers, between a quarter and a third represent the various volatile and squabbling Authenticist groupuscules. Although this is markedly over-generous, it is both magnanimous and right. They must be given the opportunity to say their various and varying says.


Bardh said:
As for employees and/or representatives of various quangos and other public bodies, again, the proportion was roughly one third.

(By the way, it should go without saying that several of the people on the list fall into more than one category.)

[quote=Bardh]About a third of the list are elected public representatives of one sort or another. It's particularly gratifying to see that someone at Councillor Brooke's level is involved.

[quote=Bardh]The first point to strike anybody is that about two third of the people listed are not Cornish-speakers. On the one hand, this is abound to leave any reasonable person at least apprehensive. The fate of the language, as far as the Partnership is concerned, is not in the hands of those who use it. That is, potentially at least, worrying.

On the other, given the current demographics of Cornish, having one third Cornish-speakers on such a body is quite an achievement, and testifies to a certain element of good will. We must surely welcome this, and congratulate those involved.




Bardh said:
[quote=Bardh]Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Roger Holmes, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart .



Whoops!
I left out Roger Holmes - my apologies! [/quote]

P.S. It was intriguing, to say the least, to read that Councillor Ansari hosted the reception for the Commission. May we take it that she no longer considers manifestations of Cornish identity to be dangerous?



[/quote]

As they teach you in Noddy's First Steps in Journalism, when you see a monkey you should always look for the organ-grinder. In respect of anybody on the list at the instance of some hierarchical organization, we need to know who their line manager is.edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 01:03 PM [/quote]

Palores
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:21 pm

Post by Palores » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:20 pm


I can help here! Apparently 'gon' (my a woer) is a very good example. Given that a pre-occluded form was never recorded, by scribes whose spelling was somewhat hwymm-hwamm anyway, pre-occlusion cannot be predicted.


Thank you for this, pietercharles. I note that the Middle Welsh equivalent of gon is gwnn and that the Middle Breton equivalent is gonn or gounn. Since these have nn one can reasonably suppose that Middle Cornish gon stood for /gonn/, in which case pre-occlusion may be predicted in this word.

Nosdan
Posts: 1313
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:31 pm

Post by Nosdan » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:35 pm

Perhaps pre-occlusion is predictable but there are special cases without it?

Palores
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:21 pm

Post by Palores » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:02 pm


Perhaps pre-occlusion is predictable but there are special cases without it?


My ny aswonnav nagonan.
Mars eus ensampel dhis, diskwedh e, mar pleg.

Branvras
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:09 am

Post by Branvras » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:17 pm

I think the Doctrine of the Unpredictability of Pre-Occlusion is a convenient smokescreen.

Some people insist that pre-occlusion be shown in writing. But if you write it in every place where you would predict that it occurs, it violates the first rule of KS - that only attested spellings may be used.

So instead of saying 'we can't write it because it is not attested', which some people would find stir crazy, you say instead 'we can't write it because we can't predict whether that would be correct for this word'. That results in people who were previously sure they wanted it written not so very sure any more, so they are less likely to insist. 'Perhaps it's an exception' they say, as Nosdan has. But if you go down that route then every example in the texts of a missed mutation should be treated as a possible exception that we all have to learn, because 'mutation is not predictable'.

But it's simply not true that pre-occlusion is not predictable. Of course it is predictable. We may get the prediction wrong sometimes but that is the very nature of a prediction. And in any case, I'm fairly certain that we wouldn't get it wrong - there is very strong evidence that we do know under what circumstances pre-occlusion occured. Just as we know under what circumstances second mutation occured, even though it is sometimes not shown in attested spellings.

I conclude that the unpredictability doctrine as stated is a KS selling aid, designed to mask an incompatibility in requirements for some words ('show pre-occlusion' versus 'use only attested spellings'), and nothing more.

Palores
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:21 pm

Post by Palores » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:55 pm

Thank you for this, Branvras. I notice that we are posting messages about pre-occlusion to the wrong thread; there is already one for that topic, and I suggest that any more contributions be made there.

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm


Palores said:
Thank you for this, Branvras. I notice that we are posting messages about pre-occlusion to the wrong thread; there is already one for that topic, and I suggest that any more contributions be made there.



I agree. This is a very sensitive topic. After all, most normal adolescents go through a phase of pre-occluding at least three or four times a week.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest